'    \ 


(f.'Lo.'ol^ 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    bpPvo^  ?S7S . VJ^u  CaAx  <Sj  \  A  ,^ -X , 


Dhnsion 
Section 


[/•AV(  /,      /  //  /  .\  /  )  -I  III     ■  I    W.S.  ] 
/ 

a'review 


-Ol- 


Professor  Briggs^s 


NAUGURAL   ADDRESS, 


BY  SIXTUS. 


i\h\V     '^  <  il'  k  : 

CHARLHS  L.  WEBSTHK  &  CO. 
1 891. 


/ 

A  REVIEW 


-OF- 


Professor  Briggs's 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS. 


BY  SIXTUS. 


NEW    YORK : 

CHARLES  L.  WEBSTER  &  CO. 

1891. 


Copyright,  1891, 

BV 

CHARLES  L.  WEBSTER  &  CO. 
(All  rights  reserved. ) 


PRESS  OF 

jENiaNS  &   McCOWAN, 

NEW  YORK. 


A    REVIECVS^ 


Professor  Briggs's  Inaugural  Address. 


In  the  month  of  January  of  the  present  year, 
Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs  delivered  an  ad- 
dress on  the  occasion  of  his  inauguration  in  the 
chair  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union  Semi- 
nary of  New  York.  .  This  address,  which  has 
since  been  printed  and  published,  has  already 
excited  a  considerable  amount  of  comment  and 
criticism.  The  occasion  upon  which  it  was  de- 
livered gave  additional  importance  to  the  state- 
ment of  doctrine  which  Professor  Briggs  then 
made.  The  professorship  is  a  new  one.  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  is  the  first  one  to  hold  it. 

The  audience,  assembled  to  hear  what  we 
may  call  the  "  programme"  of  instruction,  was 
a  large  and  distinguished  one.  Besides  the 
Seminary  Faculty  and  graduates,  the  students 
and  their  friends,  there  were  present  represent- 
atives of  the  Episcopal  Seminary  of  New  York, 
of  the  Congregational  Seminary  of  New  Haven, 
and  many  others  well  known  in  the  religious 


A    REVIEW    OF 


world.  Indeed,  one  may  regard  it  as  a  hopeful 
sign  of  Christian  unity  that  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Bishop  of  New  York  should  have 
kindly  written  a  letter  in  which  Professor 
Briggs  was  said  to  be  beloved  on  account  of 
his  failings.  For  this  will  lead  many  to  the 
belief  that  even  if  there  be  a  danger,  as  some 
suspect  that  there  is,  of  a  schism  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  by  reason  of  the  prevalence  of 
radical  doctrine,  some  erring  souls,  after  leaving 
the  Presbyterian  fold,  may  find  a  place  among 
the  "dearly  beloved  brethren"  who  have  an 
elastic  creed  and  the  "  historic  episcopate." 

The  chair  of  Dogmatic  Theology,  left  vacant 
by  the  resignation  of  the  venerable  Professor 
Shedd,  has  not  yet  been  filled.  But  in  the 
meantime,  the  seminary  is  not  without  an  in- 
structor who  is  ready  to  discuss  some  of  the 
more  important  questions  of  doctrine  in  a  man- 
ner so  easy  and  fluent  as  to  captivate,  if  not  to 
convince,  many  of  his  hearers  and  readers. 

As  a  theologian  as  distinguished  from  a  lit- 
erary critic  of  the  Bible,  Professor  Briggs  has  a 
reputation  founded  on  a  short  treatise  of  theol- 
ogy, entitled  "Whither?"  This  appeared  to 
many  to  be  an  argument  to  show  that  what  the 
Presbyterian  Church  teaches  now  is  not  what 
Presbyterian  doctrine  really  is.  The  inference 
implied  was,  that  while  Presbyterians  were  be- 


PROF.   BRIGGS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  5 

lieving  something  new  and  unpresbyterian, 
they  might  as  well  believe  in  the  doctrines  dis- 
seminated by  what  are  often  known  as  the 
"  new  theologians."  Vague  speculations,  hints, 
and  criticisms  have  for  some  time  past  awaken- 
ed a  curiosity  concerning  the  doctrines  really 
taught  at  the  Union  Seminary.  The  address 
of  Professor  Briggs  has  thrown  some  light  on 
this  subject,  and  w^e  are  enabled  to  form  an 
idea  of  the  doctrines  which  have  been  so  w  idely 
criticised. 

vSome  of  the  professors  at  Union  Seminary 
have  an  interesting  reputation  for  their  definite 
teaching,  and  their  intellectual  grasp  of  Pres- 
byterian theology.  President  Hastings,  for 
example,  has  never  been  accused  of  undermin- 
ing old  doctrines  or  of  setting  up  new  ones. 
His  occasional  articles  in  the  religious  news- 
papers, and  his  lectures  on  rhetoric  at  the 
seminary,  have  never  been  looked  upon  as 
dangerous  to  the  orthodox  faith  of  his  readers 
and  hearers.  Professor  Brown  is  well  known 
as  a  learned  orientalist  and  a  bold  critic,  but 
he  has  been  but  little  criticised  by  conservative 
people.  The  other  members  of  the  faculty 
have  escaped  suspicion,  while  the  burden  or 
honor  of  such  suspicion  has  rested  upon  Pro- 
fessor Briggs.  There  have  been  rumors  of  his 
inclination  toward  Rationalism,  and  what  Car- 


6  A    REVIEW    OF 

dinal  Newman  once  called  "Germanism."  But 
every  one  has  felt  that  with  some  of  the  con- 
servative clergy  on  the  Board  of  Directors,  no 
danger  was  to  be  apprehended  from  Professor 
Briggs's  opinions. 

Indeed,  on  reading  the  pamphlet  which  con- 
tains his  address,  we  are  obliged  to  confess  that 
it  contains  nothing  very  new  or  startling.  The 
only  thing  that  is  new  and  startling  is  that  such 
doctrines  should  be  taught  by  a  professor  in  a 
Presbyterian  seminary.  Most  Presbyterian 
laymen  are  very  intelligent  with  respect  to  the 
'*  faith  that  is  in  them."  But  not  all  laymen  can 
be  experts  concerning  such  doctrines  as  those 
of  the  Higher  Criticism.  Inspiration,  and  the 
Future  State.  When  they  are  in  doubt,  they 
often  seek  aid  from  their  pastors,  or,  if  the 
question  be  one  of  great  moment,  they  may  go 
for  definite  information  to  the  instructors  in  the 
theological  seminaries.  Every  Presbyterian 
layman  knows  that  unless  a  man  subscribe  to 
the  Westminster  standards  he  cannot  be  a 
clergyman  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  he 
supposes  that  the  clergy  are  honest  enough  to 
mean  what  they  say  when  they  so  subscribe. 
Assuming  that  Professor  Briggs's  teaching  is 
accepted  by  the  students  who  attend  lectures 
at  the  Union  Seminary,  it  becomes  a  matter  of 
no  small  importance  to  laymen  who  may  here- 


PROF.   JiKlGGS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  7 

after  enjoy  the  ministrations  of  these  younjj 
brethren,  to  know  in  what  way  Professor  Briggs 
interprets  the  standards.  Our  Presbyterian 
brethren  tell  us  that  "  Revision  is  in  the  air," 
and  it  seems  to  us  that  the  air  is  so  agitated 
that  men  are  driven  about  by  every  wind  of 
doctrine.  No  one  knows  as  yet  just  what  the 
result  of  revision  will  be,  but  Professor  Briggs 
has  contradicted  what  the  Confession  teaches 
on  several  important  points.  We  do  not  care 
to  do  more  than  to  suggest  that  he  is  in  a 
dilemma,  for  if  we  were  to  state  the  dilemma, 
we  should  find  heresy  at  one  horn,  and  disin- 
genuousness  at  the  other. 

The  title  of  Professor  Briggs's  inaugural  ad- 
dress is  "  The  Authority  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures," and  he  could  not  have  chosen  a  more 
suitable  subject.  To  a  Presbyterian  the  matter 
is  a  vital  one.  If  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  be  assailed,  then  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine is  assailed. 

We  observe,  however,  that  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  discourse,  Professor  Briggs  touches 
on  various  philosophical  questions,  and  handles 
them  in  a  way  which  shows  a  very  mistaken 
conception  of  the  history  of  philosophy,  as  well 
as  of  philosophical  procedure.  Indeed,  we  are 
by  no  means  surprised  at  his  frequent  ani- 
madversions on  dogmatic  theology,  when  we 


8  A    REVIEW    OF 

find  throughout  the  address  so  many  evidences 
of  logical  inconsistency,  logical  errors,  and — if 
we  may  be  permitted  to  say  so — philosophical 
ignorance.  He  tells  us  with  great  candor  that 
"  Logic  and  syllogism,  system  and  method 
need  constant  criticism,  verification,  and  revis- 
ion."* Such  things  seem  to  him  to  be  a  cause 
of  obscurity  and  vexation.  And  he  breaks  out 
into  an  almost  feminine  expression  of  emotion 
as  he  contemplates  systematic  theology  :  "  Oh, 
when  will  men  learn  that  the  Bible  means  ex- 
actly what  it  says  !  "  * 

The  professor  deals  very  impatiently  with 
the  scholasticism  of  the  mediaeval  theologians, 
as  well  as  that  of  the  Reformers.  But  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  faults  of  those  writers, 
it  is  certain  that  in  their  works  there  is  no  such 
display  of  confused,  contradictory,  and  illogi- 
cal thought  as  we  have  found  in  the  pages  of 
this  pamphlet.  In  saying  this,  we  mean  no 
disrespect  to  the  author,  for  it  is  seldom  that 
one  who  has  spent  his  life  in  the  study  of  lan- 
guage, Hebrew  texts,  and  manuscripts,  and 
German  commentators,  can  be  expected  to  show 
great  proficiency  in  dialectic  and  philosophical 
discussion. 

We  leave  to  others  the  diverting  task  of 
comparing  Professor  Briggs's  opinions  with  the 

*  p.  49- 


PROF.   HRIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  9 

Standards  which  he  has  solemnly  promised  to 
support.  In  another  place  we  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  allude  to  this,  but,  for  the  present,  shall 
content  ourselves  with  a  consideration  of  some 
of  the  more  philosophical  aspects  of  his  position. 
It  may  be  only  fancy,  but  we  have  an  impres- 
sion that  we  have  read  a  great  deal  of  what 
Professor  Briggs  teaches,  expressed  in  a  much 
more  clever  manner  by  Spinoza,  Voltaire,  and 
certain  of  the  Tubingen  theologians;  but  inas- 
much as  it  is  the  fashion  to  call  this  kind  of 
thought  the  "  new  "  theology,  as  if  it  had  some- 
how been  born  on  the  corner  of  Park  Avenue 
and  Sixty-ninth  Street,  we  prefer  to  treat  it  as 
a  theological  novelty. 

In  spite  of  his  impatience  of  scholastic 
methods  and  of  scholastic  dogmas.  Professor 
Briggs  entertains  certain  views  with  regard  to 
the  principles  of  religious  thought,  which  lead 
him,  whether  he  will  or  not,  into  the  very  heart 
of  that  theological  country  which  he  affects  to 
despise.  This  is  evident  at  the  outset,  where 
he  refers  with  such  solemnity,  but  with  such 
inadequate  comprehension  of  its  significance,  to 
the  test  of  truth. 

"  Probability  might  be  the  guide  of  life  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  for  those  who  have  in- 
herited its  traditions,  but  the  men  of  this  time 
are  in  quest  of  certainty.     Divine  authority  is 


lO  A    REVIEW    OF 

the  only  authority  to  which  man  can  yield  im- 
plicit obedience;  on  which  he  can  rest  in  loving 
certainty  and  build  with  joyous  confidence."  * 

Now  this  temper,  this  quest  after  certainty 
in  the  philosophical  sense  of  the  term,  has  been 
characteristic  of  almost  every  philosopher  from 
the  time  of  the  Sophists  to  the  present  day. 
And  it  is  this  temper  which  has  more  than  any- 
thing else  been  productive  of  infidelity  and 
absolute  skepticism  Professor  Briggs  does 
not  say  that  such  a  tendency  is  to  be  com- 
mended, but  from  the  context  it  appears  that 
such  is  his  opinion.  This  demand  for  certainty, 
we  might  almost  say  for  apodictic  certainty, 
was  fully  as  characteristic  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  as  of  the  nineteenth. 

No  one  who  has  read  the  Meditations  of  Des- 
cartes can  have  failed  to  notice  that  impressive 
mental  struggle  and  conflict  through  which  he 
passed,  before  he  found  that  the  only  and  ulti- 
mate certainty  was  the  fact  that  he  doubted, 
and  that  on  the  foundation  of  doubt  itself  he 
might  rear  his  dogmatic  system.  The  same 
characteristic  is  to  be  found  in  the  philosophy 
of  Pascal.  And  if  we  pass  from  the  seven- 
teenth to  the  eighteenth  century,  which,  ac- 
cording to  Professor  Briggs,  was  satisfied  with 
probability  as  the  guide  of  life,  we  are  confront- 

*  p.  24. 


PROF.   BRIGGS'S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  II 

ed  by  the  Encyclopaedists  in  France,  by  the 
leaders  of  the  Aufklaerung  in  Germany,  and  in 
Great  Britain  by  David  Hume.  It  is  indeed 
characteristic  of  the  scholastic  mind  to  seek 
after  certainty,  but  Professor  Briggs  seems  to 
think  that  he  can  reach  certainty  by  means  of 
his  inductive  methods.  On  the  contrary,  any 
one  who  knows  anything  at  all  about  induc- 
tion knows  that  it  never  gives  apodictic  cer- 
tainty. It  can  give  nothing  more  than  prob- 
ability. There  is,  indeed,  a  spurious  so-called 
induction  per  simplicein  enunierati oneni,  which 
gives  certainty,  but  logicians  have  long  since 
ceased  to  regard  it  as  a  legitimate  form  of  the 
inductive  method.  Wherever  men  have  insist- 
ed on  certainty,  and  have  remained  unsatisfied 
with  a  high  degree  of  probability,  there  absolute 
skepticism  has  taken  root  on  a  congenial  soil. 
But  we  decline  to  agree  with  Professor  Briggs 
that  this  is  a  characteristic  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  It  is  a  defect  of  the  historic  sense 
which  leads  so  many  superficial  writers  to  claim 
for  this  century  peculiarities  which  have  be- 
longed to  many  other  centuries,  and  which,  as 
in  this  case,  do  not  belong  to  the  nineteenth 
century  at  all. 

Assuming,  however,  that  certainty  is  to  be 
reached,  and  assuming  that  we  have  a  source 
of  divine  authority,  let  us  examine  this  source 


12  A    REVIEW    OF 

more  specifically.  According  to  Professor 
Briggs,  it  is  threefold:  "There  are  historically 
three  fountains  of  divine  authority — the  Bible, 
the  Church,  and  the  Reason."  * 

If  this  be  so,  it  might  be  natural  to  suppose 
that  all  three  were  equally  authoritative,  for 
they  are  all  fountains  which  flow  from  God. 
It  must  not  be  supposed  that  all  three  teach 
identical  doctrines.  All  that  the  professor 
means,  we  apprehend,  is  this,  that  each  author- 
ity is  divine  in  its  own  sphere.  They  are  all 
means  which  lead  to  one  end,  and  that  end  is 
God. 

Now  this  position  we  hold  to  be  utterly  un- 
tenable. It  is  untenable  specifically  for  the 
Presbyterian,  but  from  a  broader  and  more 
philosophical  point  of  view,  it  is  untenable  for 
any  one  who  does  not  follow  Professor  Briggs 
in  his  disregard  of  the  rules  of  logic.  It  is 
of  course  highly  desirable  that  Reason  and 
Revelation  should  be  in  harmony  with  one  an- 
other, and  if  both  are  sources  of  divine  author- 
ity, that  the  autonomy  of  each  should  be  pre- 
served, but  a  little  attention  to  historical  facts, 
combined  with  a  little  more  attention  to  the 
principles  of  disjunctive  reasoning,  might  have 
led  Professor  Briggs  away  from  the  position  in 
which    he   has   balanced   himself   in   such  an 

*  p.  24. 


PROF.   BRIGGS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  1 3 

amusing  manner.  He  is  apparently  uncon- 
scious of  this,  for,  speaking  of  the  three  sources, 
he  says,  "They  are,  they  always  have  been,  and 
they  always  will  be  harmonious."  *  But  if  that 
be  true,  then  why  does  he  say  on  the  same 
page,  "  They  ought  to  be  complementary;  there 
ought  to  be  no  contradiction  between  them. 
It  is  my  profound  conviction  that  we  are  on  the 
threshold  of  just  such  a  happy  reconciliation."* 
Let  us  examine  his  position  more  closely. 

One  of  the  stock  examples  in  elementary 
text-books  of  loofic  is  that  illustration  of  the 
fallacy  of  "equivocation,"  which  occurs  so 
often  in  discussions  concerning  the  Church. 
The  Church  is  said  to  be  a  source  of  divine 
authority  which  does  not  contradict  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Bible  or  the  religion  of  Reason. 
But  what  Church  is  this  of  which  Professor 
Briggs  speaks  ?  We  have  searched  his  pam- 
phlet from  beginning  to  end  for  light  on  this 
subject,  and  have  failed  to  find  a  satisfactory 
answer.  Undoubtedly  he  has  a  satisfactory 
answer,  as  he  is  in  quest  of  certainty.  It  would 
appear  that  the  late  Cardinal  Newman  f  was  a 
man  who  found  God  through  the  Church,  in 
which  case  the  Latin  Church  is  meant.  But  the 
Bible  as  understood  by  Professor  Briggs  is  con- 
tradictory to  Catholic  doctrine.  And  the  Re- 
*  p.  64.  t  p.  25. 


14  A    REVIEW    OF 

formed  doctrine,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed communions,  is  contradictory  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
But  we  should  probably  be  told  that  Professor 
Briggs  refers  only  to  "  Institutional  Chris- 
tianity "  when  he  speaks  of  the  Church. 
Doubtless  this  is  true.  But  we  see  no  reason 
for  calling  "  Institutional  Christianity "  the 
Church,  as  if  the  former  were  a  coherent, 
harmonious  body  of  doctrine.  What  kind  of 
Institutional  Christianity  are  we  to  look  for  ? 

Shall  we  sit  at  the  feet  of  the  Nicene  Fa- 
thers, or  of  the  Tridentine  Doctors,  or  of  the 
Westminster  Divines  ?  Is  it  the  Latin,  or  the 
Greek,  or  the  English  Church,  or  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  or  the  so-called  Protestant 
Church  which  is  the  fountain  of  divine  au- 
thority ?  We  should  probably  be  told  that  it 
is  no  one  of  these,  but  all  of  them.  But  if 
they  differ  with  one  another,  how  are  we  to 
decide  which  doctrines  are  to  be  accepted  and 
which  rejected  ?  The  Church  contradicts  it- 
self. Indeed,  Professor  Briggs  intimates  that 
this  source  of  authority  has  been  a  barrier  to 
Revelation,  a  barrier  between  man  and  God. 
It  is  difficult  not  to  smile  at  the  absurdity  of  the 
author,  telling  us  on  one  page  that  the  Church 
is  a  source  of  divine  authority,  and  on  an- 
other page  intimating  that  it  is  really  an   ob- 


PROF.  BRIGGS  S    INAUGURAI,    ADDRESS.  I5 

stacle  which  separates  man  from  God.  But 
little  harm  is  done,  for  we  submit  that  it  is  ut- 
terly impossible  to  tell  what  he  means  by  the 
term  "  Church."  We  have  heard  a  great  deal 
of  this  kind  of  talk  from  the  High-Church 
Episcopalians,  who  are  fond  of  telling  us  what 
the  "  Church"  teaches,  meaning,  by  "  Church," 
either  the  Church  of  the  first  four  centuries 
which  somehow  speaks  ambiguously,  or  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  or  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, or  the  Tractarian  waiters,  or  the  equivo- 
cal Thirty-nine  Articles.  The  only  conclusion 
that  we  have  been  able  to  reach  is  that  Profess- 
or Briggs  would  have  us  accept  the  teaching 
of  the  Church,  whatever  that  may  be,  only  in 
so  far  as  it  is  in  agreement  with  the  Bible  and 
the  Reason.  The  authority  of  the  Church  ap- 
pears thus  to  be  secondary  to  that  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Reason.  But  if  it  is  a  source  of  divine 
authority,  that  is  absurd. 

This  way  of  looking  at  authority  is  analogous 
to  what  sometimes  happens  in  the  family. 
The  child  should  obey  his  parents.  But  if 
the  father  commands  one  thing,  and  the  mo- 
ther commands  the  opposite,  the  child  is  in- 
clined to  say  :  "  I  shall  do  as  I  please." 

According  to  Professor  Briggs,  God  is  made 
known  through  the  Reason.*     When  any  one 

*  p.  26. 


1 6  A    REVIEW    OF 

Speaks  of  the  "Reason,"  after  the  stormy 
philosophical  controversies  of  the  last  two 
centuries,  it  is  imperative  that  some  clear 
definition  of  the  Reason  should  be  ofiven. 
The  professor  says  he  speaks  of  the  Reason,  in 
a  broad  sense,  "  to  embrace  the  metaphysical 
categories,  the  conscience,  and  the  religious 
feeling"."*  We  are  disposed  to  doubt  whether 
this  is  a  broad  sense  in  which  to  use  the  term. 
But,  taking  it  for  what  it  is  worth  as  a  defini- 
tion, we  are  left  in  great  perplexity  as  to  what 
is  meant.  The  term  Reason  is  often  used  as 
antithetical  to  Nature,  or  as  distinguished  from 
Revelation.  Either  of  these  two  senses  we 
should  regard  as  a  broad  sense  of  the  word. 
But  what  does  Professor  Briggs  mean  by  the 
metaphysical  categories  ?  There  are  many 
points  in  this  address  which  we  do  not  care  to 
touch  upon,  involving,  for  example,  questions 
of  exegesis  with  which  we  are  not  familiar,  but 
it  does  not  do  for  even  a  Hebrew  scholar  like 
Professor  Briggs  to  make  excursions  into  the 
field  of  systematic  philosophy  without  being  a 
little  more  sure  of  his  ground.  He  would 
doubtless  be  astonished  if  any  one  were  to 
speak  to  him  of  the  Pentateuch  "  written  by 
the  minor  prophets,"  but  such  a  mistake  would 
be  no  worse  than  to   use  Reason  as  synony- 

*  p.  26. 


PROF.  BRIGGS'S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  1 7 

mous  with  the  metaphysical  categories.  Indeed 
one  is  tempted  to  ask  what  is  meant  by  the 
"metaphysical  categories?"  Does  he  mean 
the  metaphysical  ideas  of  the  Reason,  or  the 
categories  of  the  understanding  ?  The  only 
metaphysical  categories  that  we  know  of  are 
those  of  Aristotle's  Organon,  and  systems 
founded  on  it,  and  there  is  still  some  dis- 
pute as  to  whether  the  First  Book  of  the  Or- 
gaiioii  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  Stag- 
irite's  philosophia  prima.  But  if  the  Rea- 
son is  identical  with  the  categories,  and  also 
the  same  with  the  conscience  and  the  religious 
feeling,  then  the  professor  is  simply  talking 
nonsense.  There  is  no  other  name  for  it,  or 
we  would  gladly  use  it.  It  is  nonsensical  and 
nothing  else,  to  say  that  divine  authority  rests 
in  the  metaphysical  categories,  if  it  at  the  same 
time  lies  in  Reason  which  is  one  with  con- 
science and  religious  feeling.  But  according 
to  Professor  Briggs,  this  is  the  "  Holy  of  Holies 
of  Nature."  ''^  If  by  metaphysical  forms  or 
categories.  Professor  Briggs  means  the  Cate- 
gories of  the  Kantian  Analytic,  then  it  must 
be  answered  that  according  to  Kant,  the  form 
without  the  matter,  i.  e.,  without  experience,  is 
empty.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  whence  the 
Reason  can  get  any  religious  experience  to  fill 

*  p.  26. 


1 8  A    REVIEW    OF 

these  empty  categories  without  the  Bible  and 
the  Church. 

"  The  vast  multitude  of  men  are  guided  by 
God  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  without 
their  having  any  consciousness  of  His  presence 
or  guidance.  There  are  a  few  who  are  able  to 
rise  by  reflection  into  the  higher  consciousness 
of  God.  These  few  are  of  the  mystic  type  of 
religion  ;  the  men  who  have  been  the  prophets 
of  mankind,  the  founders  of  religions,  the 
leaders  of  Revivals  and  Reformations,  who, 
conscious  of  the  divine  presence  within  them, 
and  certain  of  His  guidance,  lead  on  confidently 
in  the  paths  of  divine  Providence."  * 

This  tendency  is  likely  to  be  prevalent  after 
the  pressure  of  a  too  formal  Metaphysic.  The 
claim  ordinarily  made  by  mystics  is,  that  they 
have  the  power  to  rise  in  a  kind  of  ecstasy  to  a 
direct  apprehension  of  God  and  divine  truth, 
unchecked  by  the  limits  of  human  thought.  If 
there  is  a  new  Master  Eckhardt  or  a  new  Fene- 
lon  at  the  Union  Seminary,  we  have  as  yet 
failed  to  discover  him,  but  it  is  possible  that  the 
existence  of  such  a  reactionist  against  the  ordi- 
nary forms  of  rational  procedure  may  be  an  ex- 
planation of  the  unintelligible  doctrine  which 
Professor  Briggs  sets  forth.  Some  hint  as  to 
his  meaning  is  perhaps  given  where  he  couples 

*  p.  26. 


PROF.   BRIGGS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  I9 

the  term  "  Reason  "  with  what  is  known  in  some 
quarters  as  the  "  Christian  consciousness  ;"  and 
we  may  notice  for  a  moment  the  position  of 
those  who  attach  value  to  this  vague  term, 
borrowed,  we  believe,  from  Schleiermacher,  and 
misunderstood  by  many  American  writers  on 
theology. 

Consciousness  is  a  name  given  by  psycholo- 
gists to  the  source  of  immediate  knowledge. 
No  one  would  pretend  that  consciousness  with- 
out inference,  and  without  the  activity  of  other 
more  complex  mental  powers  could  solve  the 
problems  of  textual  criticism,  or  of  canonical 
authenticity.  If  so,  why  all  this  study  ?  why 
torture  one  with  the  discipline  of  research  and 
linguistic  specialties,  if  we  have  an  immediate 
power  which  enables  us  to  penetrate  through 
the  words  to  the  very  concept  of  divine  revela- 
tion? We  are  not  aware  that  the  adjective 
"  Christian  "  adds  anything  to  the  mediateness 
of  consciousness.  But  everybody  knows  that 
Christian  consciousness  is  only  another  name 
for  the  Reason,  and  that  the  appeal  to  Christian 
consciousness  isonly  rationalism  poorly  disguis- 
ed by  a  silly  use  of  the  philosophical  vocabulary. 

We  do  not  suppose  that  any  one  would  claim 
that  the  Christian  consciousness  was  the  source 
of  any  particular  knowledge,  but  only  a  source 
of  religious  knowledge  in  general.     To  be  con.- 


20  A     REVIEW    OF 

scious  at  all,  one  must  be  conscious  of  some- 
thing. We  may  therefore  ask,  first.  Of  what  is 
the  Christian  conscious  ?  and  secondly,  Who  are 
they  who  have  this  consciousness  ? 

It  has  become  almost  an  axiom  of  philosophy 
that  the  matter  of  all  our  knowledge  is  given 
through  experience.  This  would  imply  that 
the  matter  of  Christian  consciousness,  which  is 
a  kind  of  knowledge,  is  given  through  expe- 
rience. To  deny  this  is  to  accept  the  teaching 
of  the  mystic  that  the  soul  in  religious  knowl- 
edge transcends  the  bounds  of  ordinary  knowl- 
edge, and  possesses  ecstatic  knowledge  of  super- 
natural truth.  But  even  ecstatic  knowledge,  if 
there  be  such  a  thing,  is  the  result  of  ecstatic 
experience.  The  Catholic  affirms  that  the  mat- 
ter of  all  religious  knowledge  comes  through 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  this  is  certainly 
the  result  of  experience.  The  religious  Prot- 
estant, that  is,  the  Protestant  Christian,  has 
usually  claimed  that  the  matter  of  religious 
knowledge  comes  through  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  which  is  a  source  of  experience. 

This  Christian  consciousness  is  not  a  critical 
faculty,  for  criticism  is  a  function  of  the  Rea- 
son, not  of  consciousness.  We  are  asked  to 
regulate  our  objective  authorities,  the  Church 
and  the  Bible,  by  this  uncritical  faculty.  But 
the  Reason,  which  is  the  critical  faculty,  is  itself 


PROF.   BRIGGS'S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  2  1 

limited  by  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  and  the 
Church.  The  Christian  consciousness  will  thus 
vary  from  age  to  age,  according  to  the  rational 
attitude  of  the  people.  It  may  even  contradict 
itself.  The  test  of  religious  truth  seems  to  be 
its  harmony  with  the  Christian  consciousness. 
Professor  Briggs  seems  to  see  this  absurdity, 
for  he  proceeds  to  point  out  that  it  is  wrong  to 
suppose  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule  of  faith. 
He  holds,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Church  and 
the  Reason  are  sources  of  divine  authority.  It 
requires  no  ecclesiastical  trial  to  demonstrate 
to  any  one  who  can  read  English  that  half  an 
hour  before  he  made  this  statement.  Professor 
Briggs  solemnly  declared :  "  I  believe  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to 
be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice."  The  word  "  only  "  is  sig- 
nificant, and  the  Church,  the  Reason,  the  Chris- 
tian consciousness,  the  religious  feeling,  and  the 
"  metaphysical  categories  "  are  not  mentioned. 
At  a  trial  for  heresy  before  an  ecclesiastical 
court,  there  would  doubtless  be  some  way  of  ex- 
plaining away  this  evident  contradiction.  We 
have  always  noticed  that  men  of  heterodox 
opinions,  who  delight  to  astonish  their  conserv- 
ative brethren  and  shock  their  conservative 
sisters  by  theological  novelties  before  their 
orthodoxy    has     been     officially    condemned, 


22  A    REVIEW    OF 

assume  the  attitude  of  an  innacent  martyr 
when  their  statements  are  repeated  before  the 
court  of  a  church.  But  whether  Professor 
Briggs's  doctrines  are  in  harmony  with  the 
Confessio7i  of  Faith  or  not,  what  is  the  result 
of  having  three  sources  of  divine  revelation  ? 
The  result  is  this,  for  history  shows  that  these 
three  sources,  so  ]far  from  being  in  harmony, 
have  often  been  in  deadly  conflict:  Sooner  or 
later,  doctrines  of  the  Bible  may  be  found  to 
contradict  those  of  the  Reason,  or  doctrines  of 
the  Reason  may  be  found  inconsistent  with 
those  of  the  Church.  Then  the  arbitration  of 
the  question  will  be  doubtless  left,  by  those  who 
follow  Professor  Briggs,  to  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness. 

In  order  that  we  may  have  no  obstruction  in 
the  way  of  reaching  the  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Bible,  Professor  Briggs  has  been  so  obliging  as 
to  destroy  some  of  the  barriers  which  stand  in 
the  way  of  our  approach,  and  apparently,  lest 
any  one  should  be  tempted  to  erect  these  bar- 
riers again,  he  has,  if  we  may  say  so,  dug- a 
number  of  ditches  about  the  Word  of  God, 
which  are  quite  as  obstructive  as  the  barriers  or 
fences  which  he  thinks  have  been  removed. 

"  The  first  barrier  that  obstructs  the  way  to 
the  Bible  is  superstition."* 

*  p.  30- 


PROF.  BRIGGSS    WAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  23 

We  have  not  found  that  kind  of  superstition 
very  comnion  to  which  Professor  Briggs  objects 
in  the  following  passage  of  his  address  : 

"  But  superstition  is  no  less  superstition  if  it 
take  the  form  of  Bibliolatry.  It  may  be  all 
the  worse  if  it  concentrate  itself  on  one  thing. 
But  the  Bible  has  no  magical  virtue  in  it,  and 
there  is  no  halo  enclosing  it.  It  will  not  stop  a 
bullet  any  better  than  a  mass-book.  It  will  not 
keep  off  evil  spirits  any  better  than  a  cross.  It 
will  not  guard  a  home  from  fire  half  so  well  as 
holy  water.  If  you  desire  to  know  when  and 
how  you  should  take  a  journey,  you  will  find 
a  safer  guide  in  an  almanac  or  a  daily  news- 
paper. The  Bible  is  no  better  than  hydromancy 
or^witchcraft,  if  we  seek  for  divine  guidance  by 
the  chance  opening  of  the  book.  The  Bible,  as 
a  book,  is  paper,  pirint,  and  binding — nothing 
more."* 

Doubtless,  many  of  those  at  the  inauguration 
exercises  were  much  amused  by  these  flashes 
of  epigrammatic  wit,  and  charmed  as  much  by 
the  delicate  good  taste  of  the  comparisons,  as 
they  were  grieved  that  people  could  be  found 
so  superstitious  as  to  revere  the  paper,  ink,  and 
binding  which  are  needed  for  presenting  the 
Word  of  God  to  the  use  of  men.  Everybody 
will  admit  that  the  Bible  can  be  misused.  There 

*  p-  30- 


24  A    REVIEW    OF 

is,  of  course,  nothing  inherently  sacred  in  the 
paper,  the  binding,  or  the  ink.  All  such  ven- 
eration vanishes  when  the  sentiment  which 
prompts  it  is  analyzed.  But  what  is  the  object 
of  this  attack  on  a  harmless  feeling  of  reverence 
for  these  things  ?  We  shall  soon  see.  In  the  mean 
time  it  may  be  said  that  some  men  have  been 
found  so  foolishly  sentimental  as  to  preserve 
portraits  of  their  father  or  their  mother  after 
the  latter  are  dead  and  gone.  They  even  have 
been  known  to  go  so  far  in  their  silly  sentimen- 
tality as  to  carry  such  counterfeit  presentments 
in  their  pockets,  and  would  be  ill  pleased  to 
have  the  sentiment  which  prompts  them  to  do 
this,  roughly  analyzed.  Sometimes  people 
carry  about  with  silly  affection  old  letters, 
which  they  keep  with  reverence,  and  would 
not  care  to  have  mockingly  alluded  to. 

What  are  these  portraits  and  letters  ?  The 
Professor  Briggses  of  our  social  life  would  tell 
us  that  these  are  only  bits  of  glass,  or  of  card- 
board, or  of  paper,  or  lines  which  time  has  faded, 
or  which  may  have  been  blotted  by  tears.  We 
should  not  care  to  have  the  Bible  made  a  mere 
charm  or  fetich  for  the  ignorant.  But  this  par- 
agrapher's  smartness  with  which  the  professor 
treats  the  subject,  has  no  relevance  to  the  rev- 
erent handling  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  nor — 
and  this  is  the  point  which  we  would  emphasize 


PROF.  BRIGGS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  25 

— has  it  any  relevance  whatever  to  the  question 
whether  or  not  the  Bible  is  originally  inspired. 
If  by  Bibliolatry  be  meant  reverence  for  the 
words  of  Scripture,  whether  printed,  written, 
or  spoken,  let  us  be  Bibliolaters,  without  add- 
ing to  this  the  worship  of  the  Human  Reason, 
and  of  that  curious  'Church  of  which  Professor 
Briggs  speaks.  Is  Bibliolatry  the  only  form  of 
idolatry  which  has  been  prevalent  among  Prot- 
estants? We  object  to  these  strangely  con- 
structed terms,  but  it  will  occur  to  some  that 
there  is  Ecclesiolatry  and  Noolatry  as  well  as 
Bibliolatry  in  the  Union  Seminary.  We  cheer- 
fully pass  by  these  pleasantries  of  Professor 
Briggs,  which  are  not  to  be  taken  seriously. 
By  all  means,  let  him  have  his  sorry  jests  at 
the  expense  of  a  few  aged  women  and  some 
eccentric  persons,  who  are  wont  to  treat  the 
Bible  as  a  lamp  to  their  feet.  We  are  dealing 
with  the  logical  aspects  of  his  address,  and  de- 
cline to  be  led  astray  by  this  fallacy  which  can 
be  detected  by  a  junior  at  any  of  our  American 
colleges.  Let  us  consider  the  doctrine  of  in- 
spiration. 

Professor  Briggs  rejects  the  doctrine  of  verbal 
inspiration. 

"  The  second  barrier  keeping  men  from  the 

Bible  is  the  dogma  of  verbal  inspiration 

No  such  claim  is  found  in  the  Bible  itself  or  in 


26  A    REVIEW    OF 

any  of  the  creeds  of  Christendom.  And  yet  it 
has  been  urged  by  the  common  opinion  of 
modern  evangehcaHsm  that  there  can  be  no  in- 
spiration  without   verbal    inspiration 

There  are  those  w^ho  hold  that  thought  and 
language  are  as  inseparable  as  body  and  soul. 
But  language  is  rather  the  dress  of  thought.  A 
master  of  many  languages  readily  clothes  the 
same  thought  in  half-a-dozen  different  lan- 
guages. The  same  thought  in  the  Bible  itself  is 
dressed  in  different  literary  styles,  and  the 
thought  of  the  one  is  as  authoritative  as  the 
thought  of  the  other.  The  divine  authority  is 
not  in  the  style  or  in  the  words,  but  in  the  con- 
cept, and  so  the  divine  power  of  the  Bible  may 

be  transferred  into  any  human  language 

We  force  our  way  through  the  language  and 
the  letter,  the  grammar,  and  the  style,  to  the 
inner  substance  of  the  thought,  for  there,  if  at 
all,  we  shall. find  God."* 

This  passage  shows  that  it  has  been  hardly 
wise  for  Professor  Briggs  to  claim  as  much  as 
he  does  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  But  he 
is  apparently  utterly  unable  to  estimate  the  log- 
ical consequences  which  follow  from  his  reck- 
less and  often  contradictory  statements.  His 
contempt  of  the  logicians  has  been  carried  so  far 
that  he  is  exposed  to  a   cross-fire    from    the 

*  p-  31. 


PROF.   BRIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  27 

supernaturalists,  on  the  one  hand,  and  from 
what  he  calls  the  "victorious  army  of  critics," 
on  the  other  hand. 

And  so  the  divine  authority  or  inspiration  is 
to  be  found  in  the  concept,  not  in  the  words  ? 
We  are  much  amused  at  the  engaging  frank- 
ness with  which  Professor  Briggs  gives  expres- 
sion to  a  doctrine  which  depends  for  its  validity 
on  the  conclusions  of  that  very  scholasticism 
which  he  affects  to  despise.  This  may  not  be 
fully  appreciated  by  Professor  Briggs,  but  will 
•be  well  understood  by  those  who  have  some 
knowledge  of  the  difficult  question  of  the  rela- 
tion of  thought  to  language.  The  words  of  the 
Bible  are  not  inspired,  but  the  concept  is  in- 
spired. Let  Professor  Briggs  turn  for  a  while 
from  his  study  of  Lessing,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen, 
Weiss,  and  other  German  critics,  and  let  him 
read  Prantl's  Geschichte  der  Logik,  or  any  text- 
book which  deals  with  the  history  of  the  con- 
cept, and  he  will  find  that  he  has  made  his 
doctrine  of  inspiration  depend  on  a  logical 
theory  which  has  been  long  since  abandoned 
by  every  competent  logician. 

We  do  not  maintain  that  men  cannot  think 
without  language,  although  that  is  the  prevail- 
ing opinion  among  men  of  science  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  But  we  do  maintain  that  the  only 
way   in    which   the    knowledge   of  a  concept, 


28  A    REVIEW    OF 

whether  it  be  inspired  or  not,  can  be  made 
known  is  by  the  use  of  language.  If  a  concept 
cannot  be  expressed  in  language,  it  must  re- 
main forever  unknown.  It  is  therefore  a  matter 
of  no  consequence  that  the  Bible  has  been 
fenced  in  by  all  kinds  of  creeds  and  dogmas  ; 
for  even  if  the  fences  were  pulled  down  the 
inner  substance  would  remain  inaccessible. 

Let  us  rather  pray  that  we  may  have  some- 
thing of  the  mystic's  insight,  and,  going  out  of 
the  Church  in  order  to  become  Christians,  like 
those  described  by  Professor  Bruce,*  may  find 
all  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness. 

Not  only  are  the  Holy  Scriptures  not  inspired, 
but,  according  to  Professor  Briggs,  their  authen- 
ticity is  doubtful.  He  does  not  even  express 
the  opinion  that  they  have  divine  authenticity,  f 
It  is  encouraging  to  find  him,  at  this  point,  using 
against  his  opponents  a  weapon  of  the  logicians 
whom  he  so  much  despises.  He  has,  it  seems, 
caught  some  of  the  advocates  of  "  authenticity  " 
in  reasoning  in  circulo,  just  as  he  caught  the 
superstitious  evil-doers  using  the  Bible  instead 
of  holy  water  in  putting  out  their  fires.  It  is 
a  pleasure  to  see  how  Professor  Briggs  seems 
to  revel  in  the  idea  that  he  has  caught  his  op- 
ponents napping.     But  all  the  while  he  seems 

*  P-  41.  t  pp.  32.  33- 


I'KUF.  BRIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  29 

quite  unconscious  of  the  fatal  defect  in  his  own 
argument.  Let  us  sum  up  his  doctrine,  and 
our  objection  will  be  proved. 

The  concept  is  inspired.  But  we  do  not 
know  who  wrote  some  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible  We  know  that  Moses  and  David  did 
not  write  just  the  books  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  the  authority  of  Christ  and  the  Apos- 
tles says  that  they  did.  How,  then,  shall  we  tell 
what  is  inspired,  and  what  is  not  ?  By  the 
Higher  Criticism,  that  is,  by  Reason  and  the 
Christian  consciousness,  perhaps  by  the  relig- 
ious feeling.  These  are,  according  to  Professor 
Briggs,  sources  of  divine  authority.  Indeed  the 
metaphysical  categories  are  inspired,  whatever 
they  may  be.  And  the  concept  is  inspired, 
whatever  that  may  be  ;  but  the  inspired  concept 
is  incommunicable  because  the  language  is  not 
inspired.  We  leave  it  to  any  candid  and  logi- 
cal person  to  say  whether  this  kind  of  reasoning 
is  anything  but  a  fallacy  of  the  most  shallow 
kind.  Truly  Professor  Briggs  has  been  too  much 
occupied  with  Hebrew  grammar,  or  with  the 
literature  of  Tubingen  to  speak  ex  cathedra  on 
logical  subjects. 

Professor  Briggs  rejects  the  doctrine  of  the 
inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures,  as  well  as  that  of 
verbal  inspiration.     He  reaches  this  conclusion  : 

'*  But  on  what  authority  do  these  theologians 


30  A    REVIEW    OF 

drive  men  from  the  Bible  by  this  theory  of  in- 
errancy ?  The  Bible  itself  nowhere  makes  this 
claim.  The  creeds  of  the  Church  nowhere 
sanction  it.  It  is  a  ghost  of  modern  evangeli- 
calism to  frighten  children."  The  errors  of  the 
Bible  are  "  all  in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in 
the  essentials  ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting, 
and  not  in  the  precious  jewel  itself."  "  If  we 
should  abandon  the  whole  field  of  providential 
superintendence  so  far  as  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  are  concerned,  and  limit  divine  in- 
spiration and  authority  to  the  essential  contents 
of  the  Bible  .  .  .  we  should  still  have  ample 
room  to  seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it  is 
essential,  or  even  important,  in  the  teaching 
that  guides  our  devotions,  our  thinking,  and 
our  conduct."  * 

What,  then,  are  the  essential  contents  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  ?  Assuming  that  Professor 
Briggs  has  shown  the  Word  of  God,  as  he 
calls  the  Bible,  to  be  uninspired,  and  not  iner- 
rant,  which  assumption,  by  the  way,  throws  a 
strange  light  on  his  conception  of  the  truthful- 
ness of  God,  we  should  like  to  know  in  what 
way  it  is  proposed  to  determine  what  parts  of 
Scripture  are  inspired,  and  what  parts  are  purely 
human.  Is  this  a  matter  of  opinion,  or  is  it  a 
matter  of  principle  ? 

*  pp.  35.  36. 


PRQF.   UKIGUS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  3I 

If  Reason  does  not  make  mistakes,  and  if 
Reason  is  an  avenue  which  leads  us  to  God,  if 
the  determination  of  what  is  divine  truth  rests 
on  the  Reason  or  on  Christian  consciousness, 
then  the  test  of  what  is  divinely  inspired  is  in- 
dependent of  the  Bible  and  of  the  Church. 
The  test  of  truth  becomes  subjective  :  we  must 
find  out  whether  Revelation  is  agreeable  to  the 
Christian  consciousness.  It  seems  to  us  that 
such  a  Protagorean  method,  so  far  from  bring- 
ing us  to  the  concept  of  revelation,  raises  a 
new  barrier  not  contemplated  by  Professor 
Briggs.  It  is  the  barrier  of  human  imperfec- 
tion, the  barrier  of  theological  pretensions,  and 
in  this  instance,  the  barrier  of  Professor  Briggs 
himself.  We  fear  that  so  seductive  a  reasoner 
as  Professor  Briggs  has  been  the  means  of 
awakening  in  the  minds  of  his  followers,  as 
well  as  in  his  own  mind,  a  new  form  of  idolatry 
almost  as  insidious  as  either  Bibliolatry,  or  the 
reverence  paid  to  holy  water. 

When  a  critic  with  such  tendencies  ap- 
proaches the  subject  of  miracles,  he  becomes 
apologetic  and  timid.  For  even  the  Christian 
consciousness  has  revolted  at  times  against 
miracles.  In  such  cases  it  is  easy  to  discern 
the  real  motive  for  all  this  rationalistic  thinking, 
the  advocates  of  which  fear  to  be  logical  lest 
they  should    be    formally  accused  of    heresy. 


32  A    REVIEW    OF 

This  motive  is  a  secret  aversion  to  Supernatu- 
ralism.  One  may  see  in  the  following  passage 
how  the  timidity  of  a  secret  unbeHever  is 
adroitly  veiled  in  the  hypothetical  proposition 
in  which  the  doctrine  of  miracles  is  discussed: 

"  If  it  were  possible  to  resolve  all  the  miracles 
of  the  Old  Testament  into  extraordinary  acts 
of  Divine  Providence,  using  the  forces  and 
forms  of  nature  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
nature;  and  if  we  could  explain  all  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  His  unique  authority  over  man  and 
over  nature,  from  His  use  of  mind  cure,  or  hyp- 
notism, or  any  other  occult  power,  still  I  claim 
that  nothing  would  be  lost  from  the  miracles 
of  the  Bible."* 

We  commend  this  sentence  to  the  super- 
naturalists  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Do 
they  believe  it  or  not  ?  Whether  it  be  a  true 
proposition  or  not,  it  is  the  expression  of  a  form 
of  prevalent  infidelity.  If  Professor  Briggs 
should  say  that  one  had  no  right  to  assume 
that  he  meant  any  more  than  he  says,  we  should 
reply  that  we  had  pierced  our  way  through  the 
language  to  the  concept,  and  we  claim  that  the 
same  Higher  Criticism  is  legitimate  when  ap- 
plied to  the  word  of  Professor  Briggs  which  is 
legitimate  when  applied  to  the  Word  of  God. 

One  has  only  to  compare  this  passage  of  his 

*  P-  37- 


PROF.   BRIGGS'S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  ;^T, 

address  with  his  previously  stated  doctrine  of 
miracles,  to  be  aware  of  the  self-contradictory 
nature  of  his  argument. 

"  Christian  men  may  construct  their  theories 
about  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  with  entire  free- 
dom, so  long  as  they  do  not  deny  the  reality 
of  the  events  themselves  as  recorded  in  Holy 
Scriptures."  * 

That  is  to  say,  all  this  previous  caution  is 
unnecessary;  for  when  it  is  recorded  that  the 
fish  swallowed  Jonah,  or  that  Elijah  went  up 
by  a  whirlwind  into  Heaven,  or  that  Jesus 
turned  water  into  wine,  these  miracles  are  to 
be  believed,  however  they  may  be  explained. 

In  closing  this  part  of  his  argument  Profess- 
or Briggs  says: 

"  It  is  the  teaching  of  God  that  men  are  anx- 
ious to  know;  the  theology  of  the  Bible  itself 
is  what  they  are  craving.  The  teaching  of  men 
and  the  theology  of  creeds  and  theologians  no 
longer  content  them.  These  all  have  their 
place  and  importance,  but  they  cannot  take  the 
place  of  the  theology  of  the  Bible  and  the  au- 
thority of  God."t 

This  is  the  kind  of  rhetoric  which  one  is  ac- 
customed to  hear  in  addresses  by  those  devout 
but  ignorant  men  who  wander  about,  calling 
themselves  by  various  names,  claiming  that  the 

*  pp-  37.  38.  +  pp.  41.  42. 


34  A    REVIEW    OF 

Bible  is  enough  for  them,  and  that  they  need 
no  Church,  no  creed,  no  symbols  of  faith.  They 
overlook  the  fact  that  the  Bible  enjoins  all  of 
these.  But  these  ideas  are  seldom  expressed 
by  professors  in  institutions  of  learning.  When 
members  of  the  clergy  of  an  organized  Church 
hold  such  views  as  these,  one  is  tempted  to  ask 
why  they  remain  in  any  Church  at  all.  Indeed, 
it  would  seem  that  Professor  Briggs  wished  to 
have  the  monopoly  of  strictly  theological  teach- 
ing at  the  Union  Seminary,  for  the  words  we 
have  just  quoted  apply  as  much  to  Dogmatic 
Theology  as  they  do  to  anything  else.  It  will 
strike  many  persons  as  extraordinary  that  pro- 
fessors of  Polemics  and  of  Apologetics  should 
be  retained  in  Presbyterian  schools  of  the- 
ology, when  the  doctrines  to  be  attacked  from 
these  chairs  are  in  many  cases  those  which 
are  not  condemned  when  they  are  advanced 
by  the  professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  New 
York. 

No  one  is  obliged  to  remain  in  a  Church 
which  requires  of  its  clergy  the  profession  of  a 
dogmatic  creed.  No  one  will  be  confined  in  a 
dungeon,  nor  burned  at  the  stake  for  heresy, 
if  he  chooses  to  renounce  the  doctrines  of  any 
religious  body  in  Christendom.  But  we  are 
unable  to  understand  the  moral  principles  ac- 
cording to  which  a  man  acts,  who  not  only  re- 


PROF.  BRIGGS'S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  35 

mains  in  the  Presbyterian  ministry,  holding 
views  like  those  of  Professor  Briggs,  but  who, 
after  subscribing  to  the  narrowest  and  most 
precise  of  all  Protestant  symbols,  speaks  with 
such  flippant  disregard  of  the  theology  of 
creeds  and  theologians.  It  is  only  the  opinions 
of  men  like  Professor  Briggs  which  make  us 
doubt  the  consistency  of  such  a  term  as  "  Bibli- 
cal Theology." 

The  teacher  who  has  removed  the  bar- 
riers surrounding  the  Bible,  and  the  fences 
which  once  stood  about  the  inspired  concept, 
proceeds  to  show  what  the  Bible  really  con- 
tains, and  while  allowance  must  be  made  on 
account  of  the  brief  time  at  the  disposal  of  the 
speaker  at  his  inauguration,  we  are  somewhat 
surprised  at  the  desultory  harangue  which  ap- 
pears under  the  head  of  '•  the  Theology  of  the 
Bible."  It  makes,  indeed,  a  very  fair  sermon, 
and  shows  us  that  Professor  Briggs's  qualifica- 
tions as  a  pastor  are  superior  to  his  ability  as 
a  logician.  He  appears  to  far  better  advantage 
than  in  those  passages  where  he  is  struggling 
in  vain  to  express  with  consistency  strictly 
theological  opinions. 

There  are,  however,  several  parts  of  the  latter 
half  of  his  address,  which  we  cannot  pass  over 
without  comment. 

Professor  Briggs  is  afraid  that  the  Dogmatic 


36  A    REVIEW    OF 

Theology  of  the  Church  has  given  men  false 
ideas  of  God  and  of  the  redemption.  In  order 
to  remedy  this  wrong,  he  proceeds  to  sum  up, 
in  a  rambling  and  illogical  manner,  what  man 
ought  to  believe  about  the  chief  doctrines  of 
the  Bible.  But  any  one  so  conscientious  as  he 
is,  so  desirous  of  removing  misconceptions  of 
Biblical  truth  from  the  minds  of  others,  so  dis- 
tressed at  the  errors  of  traditional  thought,  and 
at  the  wicked  devices  of  theologians  to  per- 
vert what  the  Bible  teaches,  should  be  more 
careful  in  the  treatment  of  doctrines  the  mean- 
ing of  which  he  fails  to  understand.  As  we 
have  said,  this  part  of  the  address  would  make 
a  fair  sermon,  but  we  consider  it  a  preposterous 
synopsis  of  Biblical  Theology  to  come  from  a 
man  of  learning  and  piety. 

There  is  first  Professor  Briggs's  doctrine  of 
God.  God  is  love."^  Professor  Briggs  pre- 
sents this  proposition  as  if  it  were  his  own 
discovery,  or  as  a  reminder  of  something  for- 
gotten by  the  Church.  Our  own  observation 
has  not  led  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  great 
danger  of  our  day  is  the  forgetting  of  the  fact 
that  God  is  love.  On  the  contrary,  we  were 
under  the  impression  that  the  great  danger,  the 
great  ethical  danger,  the  great  theological 
danger,  of  our  time  was   the   forgetfulness  of 

*p.  47. 


PROK.  BRIGGS  S    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  ^J 

the  fact  thai  God  was  just.  We  can  hardly 
believe  that  Professor  Briggs,  in  spite  of  the 
barriers  and  fences  which  he  has  torn  down, 
has  yet  attained  to  the  inner  concept  of  the 
Bible,  when  he  gives  so  partial  and  inadequate 
account  of  the  Infinite  God. 

In  connection  with  this  view  of  the  love  of 
God,  which  is  only  one  of  the  attributes  of  the 
Infinite,  is  the  doctrine  of  election,  which  Profess- 
or Briggs  discusses  in  a  remarkable  paragraph. 
We  mean  that  it  is  remarkable  both  as  com- 
ing from  a  Presbyterian  professor  of  Theology, 
and  remarkable  as  a  specimen  of  reasoning. 
It  makes  one  almost  suspect  that  some  peculiar 
organon  of  logic  is  in  use  at  Union  Seminary, 
when  one  finds  such  an  example  of  reasoning 
as  this  : 

"  Presbyterians  have  too  often  limited  re- 
demption by  their  doctrine  of  Election,  The 
Bible  knows  no  such  limitations.  The  Bible 
teaches  an  election,  but  an  election  of  love. 
Loving  only  the  elect  is  earthly,  human 
teaching.  Electing  men  to  salvation  by  the 
touch  of  divine  love — that  is  heavenly  doc- 
trine." * 

"  The  Bible  does  not  teach  universal  salva- 
tion, but  it  does  teach  the  salvation  of  the 
world,  of  the  race  of  men,  and  that  cannot  be 

*  P-  55- 


38  A    REVIEW    OF 

accomplished    by    the   selection  of   a   limited 
number  of  individuals  from  the  mass."^' 

There  is  an  old  principle:  "  Expi^essio  tmius, 
exclusio  alterius."  The  word  election  means 
choice,  and  this  involves  rejection.  This  was 
a  point  strongly  emphasized  in  the  discussion 
about  a  famous  clause  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, in  which,  if  we  are  not  mistaken,  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  took  a  leading  part.  Objection 
was  made  to  the  term  "  elect  infants,"  on  the 
ground  that  it  implied  that  some  infants  are 
not  elect.  There  is  much  confusion  in  Profes- 
sor Briggs's  reasoning:  "  Loving  only  the  elect 
is  earthly,  human  teaching.""'  Does  God  then 
save  the  non-elect  ?  If  so,  then  does  Professor 
Briggs  believe  in  universal  salvation  ?  Evident- 
ly he  does,  for  we  are  told  that  the  love  of  God 
is  the  cause  of  man's  election.  We  should  be 
pleased  to  know  how  it  is  that  God  can  elect 
to  righteousness,  and  not  reject  to  damnation, 
unless,  indeed,  all  men  are  elected.  The  di- 
lemma is  one  which  even  Professor  Briggs  can 
understand  ;  either  he  is  a  Universalist,  or  else 
he  is  unable  to  reason  correctly.  We  do  not 
pause  to  notice  his  account  of  the  "  Middle 
State."  It  is  highly  imaginative,  but.  unfortu- 
nately, the  imagination  is  not  a  discursive  or 
reasoning  faculty.     We  might  ask.  What  is  the 

*P-  55- 


PROF.  BRIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  39 

difference  between  the  salvation  of  the  uni- 
verse and  the  salvation  of  the  world  ?  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  contradicts  himself  when  he  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  that  the  salvation  of  the  world 
does  not  mean  the  salvation  of  the  world,  but 
only  of  a  great  multitude.  But  he  gives  no 
explanation  of  why  the  minority  of  the  non- 
elect  are  not  elected,  and  we  fear  that  he  has 
not  yet  learned  to  be  a  consistent  Pelagian. 

And  before  leaving  this  subject  of  the  con- 
ception of  God  and  of  redemption,  we  feel 
bound  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in 
his  synopsis  of  Biblical  Theology  Profess- 
or Briggs  makes  no  mention  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  of  the  deity  of  Christ, 
except  where  he  warns  men  against  forgetting 
the  Redeemer's  humanity,  nor  of  the  Person 
and  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Are  these  doc- 
trines, then,  not  taught  in  the  Bible  ?  It  is 
not  fair  to  judge  a  writer  by  what  he  does  not 
say,  but  after  reading  Professor  Briggs's  ad- 
dress one  is  inclined  to  suppose  that  he  believes 
in  but  one  Trinity,  consisting  of  the  Bible  (the 
divine  authenticity  of  which  he  has  denied), 
the  Church  (in  which  he  has  no  very  great 
confidence),  and  the  Reason  (which  in  his  own 
case  is  a  singularly  untrustworthy  and  incon- 
sistent guide).  And  in  the  entire  address, 
which  touches  upon  so  many  parts  of  the  the- 


40  A    REVIEW    OF 

ological  encyclopaedia,  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  Christ's  sacrificial  death,  and  what  it 
means  to  the  world.  In  Professor  Briggs's 
opinion  this  may  not  be  an  important  doctrine 
of  Biblical  Theology;  but  he  becomes  almost 
lachrymose  over  the  way  in  which  Christians 
have  treated  the  resurrection,  the  enthrone- 
ment, and  other  parts  of  the  exaltation  of 
Christ,  and  exclaims:  "  Oh,  how  these  have  been 
neglected !  "^'  But  the  truths  of  which  he 
speaks  have  not  been  neglected,  if  we  may 
judge  by  the  standards  of  the  Church  to  which 
Professor  Briggs  belongs,  unless,  indeed,  he 
has  torn  down  a  part  of  that  barrier  called  the 
Weshiiins^er  Confession,  which  treats  of  the 
exaltation  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  His  resurrection, 
ascension  and  reign  of  grace  forevermore.  On 
the  other  hand,  after  reading  the  address,  and 
finding  no  emphasis  laid  upon  the  privations, 
poverty,  passion,  and  atoning  death  of  the  Re- 
deemer, many  will  feel  inclined  to  reecho  the 
professor's  words  :  "  Oh,  how  these  have  been 
neglected  !  "  These  great  truths,  which  are  so 
evidently  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  from  the 
days  of  the  first  paschal  feast  to  the  time  of 
the  great  doxologies  of  the  Apocalypse,  are  by 
no  means  the  least  important  part  of  "  Biblical 
Theology." 

*p.  6i. 


PROF.   BKIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  4I 

Professor  Briggs  follows  most  infidel  writers 
of  our  day,  in  calling  the  Christian  Church  to 
account  for  its  lack  of  conformity  to  the  teach- 
ings, the  ethical  teachings,  of  Jesus.  The  reproof 
is  always  needed  in  this  world  of  sin  and  sor- 
row. But  such  reproof  does  not  come  with 
particularly  good  grace  from  one  who  has  not 
merely  distorted  the  doctrines  of  the  catholic 
faith,  but  has  cast  doubts  on  the  veracity  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  on  the  teaching  of  the  Sav- 
iour, whose  ethics  he  professes  to  admire. 

How  far  the  Presbyterian  clergy  and  laity 
generally  will  be  in  sympathy  with  the  views 
of  Professor  Briggs  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing.  Nothing  could  better  show  his  de- 
fective apprehension  of  what  his  principles  in- 
volve than  this  sentence,  which  is  to  be  found 
near  the  close  of  the  address : 

"  I  have  not  departed  in  any  respect  from  the 
orthodox  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  as 
set  forth  in  its  official  creeds."^' 

If,  after  this  statement,  any  one  cares  to  de- 
fend the  professor's  logic,  he  will  also  be  com- 
pelled to  defend  the  professor's  veracity. 

Even  if  it  should  be  claimed  that  the  teach- 
ing of  Professor  Briggs  is  not  representative  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
fact   remains   that  he  is  permitted  to  instruct 

*  p.  62. 


42  A    REVIEW    OF 

theological  students  as  to  what  they  should 
believe.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  if  his  doc- 
trine is  erroneous,  those  who  permit  him  to  re- 
tain his  position  are  directly  responsible  for 
his  errors.  In  former  days  the  power  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  was  largely  dependent 
on  the  unity  of  its  doctrine,  and  its  strict  de- 
fence of  its  principles.  In  this  it  has  differed 
from  the  Episcopal  Church,  where  the  unity 
has  been  chiefly  a  unity  of  liturgy  and  polity. 
When  it  is  said  of  a  man,  *'  He  is  an  Epis- 
copalian," it  is  impossible  to  say  beforehand 
whether  he  would  agree  with  the  views  of  Mr, 
Heber  Newton,  or  those  of  the  Ritualists.  The 
Presbyterian  Church,  in  so  far  as  we  kno'w% 
has  no  liturgy,  unless  those  odd  bits  of  chant- 
ing and  responsive  reading  which  one  hears  in 
some  Presbyterian  congregations,  which  re- 
semble a  badly  mutilated  version  of  the  Epis- 
copal prayer-book — unless  those  are  to  be  called 
a  liturgy.  Presbyterians  have  a  system  of 
polity.  They  guard  it  very  jealously,  but  do 
not  hold  it  essential  that  their  clergy  should 
believe  it  to  be  jure  divino.  But  while  they 
are  coquetting  with  the  Episcopalians  with  re- 
gard to  church  union,  and  while  they  find  the 
acceptance  of  the  "historic  episcopate"  a 
stumbling-block,  and  a  menace  to  their  self-re- 
spect, they  permit  teaching  which  is  virtually  a 


PROF.  BRIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  43 

surrender  to  the  Universalists  and  Unitarians,  a 
leader  of  whom  their  chief  apostle  Calvin  was 
ready  to  burn  at  the  stake.  Just  as  the  Ritual- 
ists imitate  the  Catholics,  so  the  Presbyterians 
are  borrowing  an  Episcopalian  perruque  to 
cover  the  "  baldness  "  of  Presbyterian  worship. 
And  while  these  brethren  are  engaged  in  these 
inconsistent  practices,  Protestants  seem  to  be 
very  uneasy  at  the  advance  of  Rome,  and 
Presbyterians  are  uneasy  over  the  patronizing 
attentions  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishops  ; 
and  the  questions  are  agitated,  shall  there  be 
more  than  one  minister  in  each  Presbyterian 
Church,  or,  shall  we  have  a  quartette  choir,  or, 
shall  we  have  deaconesses  ?  Less  attention  is 
paid  to  what  were  once  called  "  essential  doc- 
trines," and  so  far  as  we  can  discern  the  signs 
of  the  times,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  ap-' 
proaching  its  former  Universalistic  enemies 
with  a  flag  of  truce.  We  have  no  sympathy 
whatever  with  those  who  feel  alarm  at  such 
teaching  as  that  of  Professor  Briggs  but  do 
nothing  to  prevent  it  ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  feel 
respect  for  a  Church  which  teaches  one  doc- 
trine in  its  creed  and  symbols,  and  another 
doctrine  in  its  pulpits  and  theological  semi- 
naries. 

Considerable  interest  has  been  awakened  in 
some  quarters   by   the  change  in  that  clause  of 


44  A    REVIEW    OF 

the  Confession  of  Faith,  in  which  the  pope  is 
referred  to  as  "  Antichrist."  This  change  has 
been  regarded  as  the  removal  of  a  barrier  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian  and  the  Roman  Cath- 
ohc  doctrine.  But  if  there  be  a  danger  of 
Presbyterians  being  led  to  look  with  friendly 
eyes  at  the  Latin  Church,  it  is  to  be  found 
rather  in  attacks  like  this  of  Professor  Briggs 
upon  the  authenticity  and  authority  of  the  in- 
spired Scriptures.  Hitherto  the  Presbyterian 
has  claimed  that  his  Church  is  a  standing  an- 
swer to  the  accusation  that  Protestantism  is  a 
disintegrating  force,  and  that  the  principle  of 
the  private  judgment  leads  logically  to  infidel- 
ity. If  statements  and  arguments  like  those 
of  Professor  Briggs  are  permitted  to  go  un- 
challenged in  the  courts  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  there  will  arise  in  the  minds  of  many 
Presbyterians  an  inclination  to  enter  some  re- 
ligious body  which  still  gives  supreme  author- 
ity to  the  truths  of  revelation.  Protestants 
boast  of  their  open  Bible.  Of  what  advantage 
is  an  open  Bible,  if  it  be  opened  only  that  it 
may  be  mutilated,  and  torn  into  as  many  frag- 
ments as  there  are  critics  ?  If  Reason  is  to  be 
the  chief  arbiter  of  supernatural  doctrine,  many 
will  seek  for  a  Church  in  which,  even  if  the 
Bible  be  closed  to  the  laity,  it  is  read  with  rev- 
erence by  the  c  lergy .  Already  we  are  being  told 


PROF.   BRIGGSS    INAUGURAL    ADDRESS.  45 

by  Professor  Caftan,  of  Berlin,  that  there  is  too 
much  mediaevaUsm  about  the  Protestant  relig- 
ion, and  that  the  Church  is  but  half  reformed. 
The  future,  we  are  told,  is  to  give  us  a  new 
theology,  erected  on  the  broken  fragments  of 
the  old.  In  view  of  all  this,  there  are  many 
who,  while  they  are  not  willing  at  present  to 
accept  the  teaching  of  Rome  with  regard  to  the 
infallibility  of  the  pope,  or  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  and  other  teaching  of  the 
kind,  will  eventually  be  glad  to  find  a  home  in 
a  church  which  still  holds  to  the  religion  of 
supernatural  revelation,  which  does  not  deny 
the  inspiration  of  the  words  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  which  is  far  less  worthy  to  be  called  Anti- 
christ than  such  communions  as  permit  their 
members  to  put  in  jeopardy  not  only  the  truth 
of  the  words  of  Christ,  but  also  that  teaching 
without  which  the  Church  of  Christ  becomes  a 
society  of  skeptics,  with  but  little  doctrine  in 
common  except  that  of  the  being  of  God  and 
of  the  inestimable  value  of  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness. 


Date  Due 

! 

1 

Ci  1«J   ^- 

.r 

•  a" 

;  «.-    ,■;! 

'X.AiLt^ 

* 

iii?:iiiii»iiii 


